"It's why the American people hate Congress. Unlike the people in Congress, we have actual responsibilities."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dropped a bomb on Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Congress for refusing to allow a vote on Hurricane Sandy relief in the final hours of the 112th Congress. It was an instant classic of principled political outrage. It provided a strong dose of what Washington has been missing: blunt, independent leadership.

John AvlonChristie prosecuted the case by pointing out that hurricane relief had been provided more quickly to others: For victims of Katrina after 10 days and victims of Hurricane Andrew in Florida after 30 days. But residents of the New Jersey and New York coast have been waiting 65 days to date for some relief.

Christie also accurately pointed out that Northeast states such as New Jersey and New York send more to the federal government in taxes than they get back in federal aid, unlike many of the red states represented by conservatives in Congress. The "makers versus takers" narratives fall apart fast when confronted with reality.

Pulling no punches, Christie declared: "Last night, the House majority failed most basic test of leadership and they did so with callous disregard to the people of my state. ... It was disappointing and disgusting to watch." He also unapologetically named names: "There's only one group to blame ... the House majority, and their Speaker, John Boehner." He added that the relief bill "just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority."

But Christie also took the high road in terms of decrying the overall atmosphere of hyperpartisanship in D.C., arguing correctly that "Americans are tired of the palace intrigue and political partisanship of this Congress ... this used to be something that was not political. Disaster relief was something that you didn't play games with."

One tweet I saw from "Ronnie" in Chicago seemed typical: "His dedication to his State is inspiring. I'm a democrat but damn, Christie's won me over. He has a damn heart."

Christie's fury was backed up by similar straight talk from New York Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island.

He blasted House leadership on CNN Wednesday morning: "I would say the Republican Party has said it is the party of family values," he said. "Last night it turned its back on the most essential value of all, and that is to provide food, shelter, clothing and relief for people who have been hit by a natural disaster. And I would say that the Republican Party has turned its back on those people."

This display of independence was a reminder that there is a distinct brand of tough Northeastern Republicans -- people such as Christie, King and Rudy Giuliani -- who don't simply toe the line with party leadership or ideological litmus tests. Largely as a result, they are able to connect with centrists and independent voters and win on Democratic turf. This is a lesson for national Republicans as they look to reach out beyond their base.

Christie and King's principled independence and tough talk against their own party leadership brought results.

Within hours, Boehner and Republican House leadership announced that they would vote for an initial round of Sandy relief on Friday, followed by a vote on the remaining amount on January 15.

Conservative activist groups such as Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth and Heritage Action all pressured congressional Republicans to vote against Hurricane Sandy relief, and while they helped block a bill from coming to a vote on New Year's Eve, the swift and unsubtle backlash brought a wise reassessment.

All this is a reminder that straight talk in politics is so rare that it stands out and carries more than its own weight in civic debates. It cuts through the spin and resonates beyond party lines because it is credible and rooted in reality.

Most importantly, it gets results. Boehner's turnaround brought to mind a comment made by Christie during his press conference: "No one is beyond redemption."

Christie's point about blue states being net givers to the federal government, where red states are net takers, is one that isn't made nearly often enough in public forums. Red states talk a good game, but they make more than sure to feed at the trough.

yep

__________________
Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning:

Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down.

Christie's point about blue states being net givers to the federal government, where red states are net takers, is one that isn't made nearly often enough in public forums. Red states talk a good game, but they make more than sure to feed at the trough.

I hope the Left continues to make this argument, because they'll look like complete fools. They cannot demand a welfare state of redistribution, but then attack redistribution between the States.

Also, who is paying the taxes in "blue states" anyway? Hardcore liberals and minorities? Suuuure. Polls show that tendency to vote GOP rises in every single state based on income. While wealthy people in blue states tend to be more Liberal than the wealthy in red states, it is still true that as income rises peole vote GOP. Therefore, they're the ones transferring money - not impoverished welfare queens in Newark.

I hope the Left continues to make this argument, because they'll look like complete fools. They cannot demand a welfare state of redistribution, but then attack redistribution between the States.

Also, who is paying the taxes in "blue states" anyway? Hardcore liberals and minorities? Suuuure. Polls show that tendency to vote GOP rises in every single state based on income. While wealthy people in blue states tend to be more Liberal than the wealthy in red states, it is still true that as income rises peole vote GOP. Therefore, they're the ones transferring money - not impoverished welfare queens in Newark.

So what you are saying is that there are more rich people in the coastal states than the big square ones in the middle. It might also make sense to look at population vs. registered voters vs. those that actually vote. I would imagine that it is also more expensive and less efficient to provide benefits to people scattered over a large area than it is to do so in areas with a more concentrated population.

Percentages/statistics are fun to play with. I have no doubt one of our lovers of graphs could clearly show that the majority of tax dollars spent, goes to the Blue states and it would be very convincing if one doesn’t bother to take into account population size.

I’m pretty conservative but, in my opinion natural disasters are exactly the kind of issue why we actually have a Federal Government. If it is my house and state become a pile of rubble, I want a fat loudmouth Governor making some noise. I also think those that stuck pork in the middle of the relief bill should be raked over the coals by both parties, the media and by their constituents. It is disgusting.